Legal Opinion · Dissent

Williams v. Back

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided October 7, 1981No. 13230Published

1DissentPhillips, Chief Justice

I respectfully dissent. I would hold that, as a matter of law, a creditor cannot charge usurious interest without the debtor’s actual or constructive knowledge. The statute involved, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5069-1.06 (1971), is penal in nature and must be strictly construed. Houston Sash & Door Co., Inc. v. Heaner, 577 S.W.2d 217 (Tex.1979). In sending the statement in question which never reached appellant, appellee has only attempted to charge usurious interest. Art. 5069-1.06 requires that appellee actually charge usurious interest. Even the majority opinion states that “[t]he basis of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Houston Sash and Door Co., Inc. v. HeanerTexas Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Windhorst v. Adcock Pipe and SupplyTexas Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Windhorst v. Adcock Pipe & SupplyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1976

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API